Re: [Xen-devel] [Hackathon minutes] PV frontends/backends and NUMA machines

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 21.05.13 at 12:30, Dario Faggioli <raistlin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On mar, 2013-05-21 at 11:06 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> At 14:48 +0100 on 20 May (1369061330), George Dunlap wrote:
>> > The second is to make the pfn -> NUMA node layout reasonable.  At the
>> > moment, as I understand it, pfns will be striped across nodes.  In
>> > theory dom0 could deal with this, but it seems like in practice it's
>> > going to be nasty trying to sort that stuff out.  It would be much
>> > better, if you have (say) 4 nodes and 4GiB of memory assigned to dom0,
>> > to have pfn 0-1G on node 0, 1-2G on node 2, &c.
>> 
>> I have been having a todo list item since around the release of 4.2
>> to add support for "dom0_mem=node<n>" and
>> "dom0_vcpus=node<n>" command line options, which I would think
>> would be sufficient to deal with that. 
>>
> I remember such discussion (which, BTW, is here:
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00332.html ).
> However, wasn't that supposed to help only in case you want to confine
> Dom0 on one specific node?
> 
> That would definitely be already something, but not quite the same thing
> that came up in Dublin, and that George was describing above (although I
> agree it covers a sensible subset of it :-) ).

I certainly meant to implement both such that multiple nodes would
be permitted.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel